U.P. National Manufacturers Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta>2000(08)LCX0108

2000(08)LCX0108

IN THE CEGAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA

Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Dr. S.N. Busi, Member (T)

U.P. NATIONAL MANUFACTURERS LIMITED

Versus

COMMR. OF CUS., CALCUTTA

Order No. A-1346/CAL/2000, dated 23-8-2000 in Appeal No. C/V-4/96

Advocated By : None, for the Appellant.

Shri R.K. Roy, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants are absent. However, they have made a request for deciding the case on merits and have also filed a written submission in support of their appeal.

2. The short question required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the ball bearings imported by the appellants are classifiable under sub-heading 8482.10 as bearings or the same have to be assessed as parts of Electric Motors under Heading 85.03 read with Notification No. 62/95-Cus. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his impugned Order has held as under :-

“The appeal was heard on 24-7-1995. S/Shree H.C.S. Ahluwalia, Consultant and A.N. Jha, Executive of the appellant firm appeared and reiterated their written submissions and prayed to grant the benefit of part as actual user.

I have gone through the case records and carefully examined the arguments advanced by the appellants. In the instant case, the appellants imported a consignment of ball bearings which were assessed under tariff Sub-heading 8482.10 as bearings. According to the appellants, the goods are intended to be used as parts of electrical motor which is their manufactured product. They are of the opinion that the subject bearings should, therefore, be assessed as parts of electric motor under Heading 85.03 read with Notification No. 62/94-Cus. I find the Asstt. Collector of Customs for ARS vide his Order, dated 5-4-1995 has rejected the plea of the appellants and observed that the refund claim lodged by them is unsubstantiated.

It is well established in law that goods should be classified in their respective specific heading/sub-heading in terms of chapter note/section note of the tariff. The item, ball bearing, find specific entry in Sub-heading 8582.10. As a result, the same cannot be assessed under any other heading/sub-heading as claimed by the appellants.

The appellants have stated that earlier they have imported ball bearings which were assessed at lower rate of duty under TSH 8482.10 read with 8503.00 as parts of electric motor read with Notification No. 155/86-Cus. In that case the imported bearings were so assessed extending benefit of Notification No. 156/86-Cus. in which parts were exempted from duty for initial setting up of their unit for assembly or manufacture of specific articles falling under chapter 84 or 85. With the rescission of the said notification, the same benefit can no longer be available. I, therefore, hold that in the present case, the imported ball bearings have been assessed correctly under Sub-heading 8482.10 and I find no room to interfere with the Order passed.”

3. The appellants in their written submission have strongly contended that Tariff Heading 85.03 clearly says, ‘parts suitable for use solely or principally with the machines of heading T.H. 85.01 or 85.02’. They have submitted that inasmuch as bearings in question were to be used solely in the manufacture of Electric Motors, they are required to be assessed under Heading 85.03 and the benefit of Notification No. 62/94-Cus., dated 1-3-1994, would be available to them.

4. We have also heard Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR, for the Revenue. We find that Sub-Heading 8482.10 describes the item as ball bearing. The goods imported by the appellants are undisputedly ball bearings. The appellate authority has rightly observed that when there is a specific heading covering a specific item, the goods have to be assessed under the same. The appellants have not shown that the ball bearings imported by them are not for regular use or general purpose ball bearings. The mere fact that the same are required to be used for Electric Motors, will not shift their classification from Chapter 84 to Chapter 85. Similarly, we find that the benefit having been extended to ball bearings imported earlier, for initial setting up of their Unit does not advance the appellants’ case, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellants and reject the same.

_______

Equivalent 2001 (134) ELT 0164 (Tri. - Kolkata)